Alexandria's Genesis

[KiMeepKi]

If I'm not in the right forum, please report this thread to a moderator so that it can be moved. No need to get snooty about it, 'kay?

For those who don't know about it, Alexandria's Genesis is supposedly a mutation that gives human white skin that does not tan or burn, purple eyes (not violet, purple), long life spans, and completely efficient bodies (as in, it produces no waste and reabsorbs all possible waste). More information can be found here.

I stumbled upon this looking up some information one day about purple eyes. And I read about it and, obviously, it sounds like a folktale to me. But as a scientist, I acknowledge the possibility of many things that have not been discovered yet. This could be a very exaggerated tale about something which we've never seen before.

However, its validity is very suspect to me...first of all, the page I linked you to is supposedly the first website with info about it...and its a fanfiction page. Secondly, I can't find any sort of legitimate documentation about the girl "Alexandria". And there's no real information about Alexandria's genesis period really.

This brings me to my actual point: this seeming more like folklore than anything else, am I the only one who finds this to be a tad bit racist? This is supposed to be the perfect human, and they have white skin...Not to mention the whole "The most startling aspect of the biracial "Genesis" children is that they take on a more Euro-American appearance" is suspect. I'm usually not the type to play the race card, but the story has a lot of Euro-centric ideologies in it that was commonplace in the time period this tale supposedly popped up (and technically is still commonplace to this very day...but people tend to not want to admit that).

DISCUSS:
~ Whether you think Alexandria's Genesis is real, a folktale, or something made up for a fanfiction
~ Is Alexandria's Genesis scientifically possible? (I say probably not, but who knows)
~ Is the concept of this mutation racist to you? (obviously does not apply if you believe its real)
~ What other sort of "perfect human" folklore and scientific ideas have you heard of?

[VorpalNeko]

KiMeepKi

For those who don't know about it, Alexandria's Genesis is supposedly a mutation that gives human white skin that does not tan or burn, purple eyes (not violet, purple), long life spans, and completely efficient bodies (as in, it produces no waste and reabsorbs all possible waste). More information can be found here.

There does not seem to be any reason that purple eyes and white skin that does not tan are genetically impossible. More problematic is the "does not burn" part, although that might be taken as an exaggeration. The "long life span" is extremely unlikely to be caused by a single mutation. What makes it a complete physical impossibility is this, however:

Quote:

completely efficient bodies (as in, it produces no waste and reabsorbs all possible waste)

That moves it from "incredible" to "completely and utterly ridiculous."

KiMeepKi

~ Whether you think Alexandria's Genesis is real, a folktale, or something made up for a fanfiction

I don't know about its ultimate origins, but it isn't the real world.

KiMeepKi

~ Is Alexandria's Genesis scientifically possible? (I say probably not, but who knows)

Absolutely not. See above.

KiMeepKi

~ Is the concept of this mutation racist to you?

Not by itself, but I can see how it would give off such a vibe. In a fictional story using it could very well be racist, but not necessarily so.

KiMeepKi

(obviously does not apply if you believe its real)

How would it being real automatically make in non-racist?

[KiMeepKi]

VorpalNeko

There does not seem to be any reason that purple eyes and white skin that does not tan are genetically impossible. More problematic is the "does not burn" part, although that might be taken as an exaggeration. The "long life span" is extremely unlikely to be caused by a single mutation. What makes it a complete physical impossibility is this, however:

Quote:

completely efficient bodies (as in, it produces no waste and reabsorbs all possible waste)

That moves it from "incredible" to "completely and utterly ridiculous."

I completely agree with you on that one. The purple eyes and white skin aren't the parts that make it unrealistic to me...its the "does not burn" and "produces no waste" thing that makes it silly to me. But there are people out there who believe that have this, lol. A completely efficient system is, as of yet, physically impossible.

Quote:

How would it being real automatically make in non-racist?

Its not racist because if its real then its a fact, not a concept based on Euro-centric ideals of beauty and perfection. Racism is the idea of one race being superior or inferior to another. It is the possible basis behind the concept that makes it seem a bit racist to me. If its real, its not racist because the idea of it being Euro-centric is what makes it racist. A person with this supposed condition could become racist, but the idea itself can no longer be considered racist because it wouldn't be an idea, it would be a real occurrence.

[Golden Dysprosium]

A quick search on google shows that violet eyes are a very, very rare occurance, but they're possible...esp. if you're an albino. Ah, now we're getting somewhere.
Blue eyes are (if I recall) the result of a melanin defficiency, and albinos often have red eyes (blue+red=violet). The other stuff is, of course, ridiculous; I blame the halo effect. Interestingly enough, Liz Taylor is proclaimed as having violet eyes, and the search turns up some rather attractive women. (Damn my bisexuality!)
According to Wiki, you can find them more commonly in the remote regions of Afgahnistan, in the high mountains, which would explain the dark hair thing.

[Anonconda]

"It turns out that females born with "Alexandria's Genesis" never menstruate in their lives. They are fertile, however, and can go through the same things that women without the mutation can go through every month. Beyond these differences, those with the mutation go through puberty as normally as everyone else does."

I guess this is supposed to go with that idea that it is more efficient to reabsorb waste or something? But, that's like, they are absorbing nutrients via their uterus. There is an already good working mechanism for absorbing nutrients via the intestines. Their idea that absorbing all wastes is kinda crazy. I would consider discharge of waste products part of the body's natural physiology and is actually more efficient than trying to retrieve energy or nutrients from waste products.

[VorpalNeko]

KiMeepKi

Its not racist because if its real then its a fact, not a concept based on Euro-centric ideals of beauty and perfection. Racism is the idea of one race being superior or inferior to another.

(Emphasis mine). I agree with that definition, but you seem to contradict yourself. It's conceptually possible that "one race [is] superior or inferior to another"--i.e., it could have been a fact, and it yet it would still be racist by the definition of racism you give here. In the real world, that sort of claim is not reasonably based on facts, but it being false is does not follow by its very definition.

KiMeepKi

If its real, its not racist because the idea of it being Euro-centric is what makes it racist.

Um, no. That's just the dominant form of racism in the Western world. It doesn't encompass all racism.

KiMeepKi

A person with this supposed condition could become racist, but the idea itself can no longer be considered racist because it wouldn't be an idea, it would be a real occurrence.

I don't see why it can't be. It follows the definition you gave. If you want to say that in such a case it wouldn't be unreasonable or immoral or some other category frequently associated with racism, I would agree. But although there are good reasons that those categories are associated with racism, "by definition" isn't one of them.

[KiMeepKi]

@Golden Dysprosium: Well, I wasn't saying that violet eyes weren't real... sweatdrop

@AndiConda3: I can't imagine that being able to reabsorb waste would be a good idea either...If you absorb waste, wouldn't you be reabsorbing the toxins you're body is getting rid of? That's another reason this makes no sense to me...

@VorpalNeko: I...don't think you quite understand what racism is. Racism is a set of beliefs. You believe a race is superior. If there is some mutation of humans that actually makes them genetically superior, then its not racism because its not a belief anymore, its true. If this was real, then technically they wouldn't be a race anyway. They would be an entirely different species of human because there is no real difference between the races genetically aside from a few phenotypical differences (which is why people prefer to use "ethnicity" nowadays. "Race", technically speaking, does not really exist in humans...). If you looked at my definition, I said racism is an idea; if the concept is no longer a mere idea, then its not racism by that definition I gave.

The superiority/inferiority of racism is based in hatred and an inability to comprehend differences between ethnicities. Because of this, the basis of racist beliefs tend to be unrealistic and fictional. For example, staying away from Black people because you believe them all to be lowly thugs. This isn't true at all and in reality, the Blacks who are thugs are actually a minority in the African American community. However, if the basis is a fact and its not because of hatred or inability to understand, then can you really call it racist?

And I wasn't saying Euro-centrism was the only type of racism, I said that that is what makes this particular idea racist. Obviously there are more forms of racism. A black person can be racist, an Asian person can be racist; its just that this specific idea seems based on Euro-centrism. You just...misread that statement... sweatdrop

[VorpalNeko]

KiMeepKi

@VorpalNeko: I...don't think you quite understand what racism is. Racism is a set of beliefs. You believe a race is superior.

I know. It's exactly the definition I've been using. You seem to be under some strange notion that belief automatically means it's not a fact. Those are completely separate categories: there are beliefs that are facts, and there are beliefs that are not; there are facts that are believed, and there are facts that are not.

KiMeepKi

If there is some mutation of humans that actually makes them genetically superior, then its not racism because its not a belief anymore, its true. If this was real, then technically they wouldn't be a race anyway.

'Race' as it is commonly used is a socially defined term. The ethnic divisions of race have almost no genetic support (which is among the reasons racism is unfounded, although there are better ones). Hence this point is irrelevant.

KiMeepKi

The superiority/inferiority of racism is based in hatred and an inability to comprehend differences between ethnicities.

Frequently, yes. But racism doesn't stop being racism just because there is no hatred involved. It's quite possible to be racist, or unreasonable, or immoral, or whatever, and not hate.

KiMeepKi

However, if the basis is a fact and its not because of hatred or inability to understand, then can you really call it racist?

Of course I can. It is a fact that I tend to find east-asian women more attractive to south-asian women. I believe that they tend to be more attractive. Hence, my sexual preferences are racist by your definition. They're also very sexist, by an analogous definition (s/race/sex/). So what?

KiMeepKi

You just...misread that statement... sweatdrop

No, I read it exactly as you said it. Quoth you:

KiMeepKi

Racism is the idea of one race being superior or inferior to another.

Look, your definition of racism was completely independent of any factual, reasonable, or moral components. It's a particular belief. Whether it is reasonable or ethical is separate question--those categories have nothing to do with the definition. If you don't like these that, you should have defined it differently.

[KiMeepKi]

VorpalNeko

KiMeepKi

@VorpalNeko: I...don't think you quite understand what racism is. Racism is a set of beliefs. You believe a race is superior.

I know. It's exactly the definition I've been using. You seem to be under some strange notion that belief automatically means it's not a fact. Those are completely separate categories: there are beliefs that are facts, and there are beliefs that are not; there are facts that are believed, and there are facts that are not.

KiMeepKi

If there is some mutation of humans that actually makes them genetically superior, then its not racism because its not a belief anymore, its true. If this was real, then technically they wouldn't be a race anyway.

'Race' as it is commonly used is a socially defined term. The ethnic divisions of race have almost no genetic support (which is among the reasons racism is unfounded, although there are better ones). Hence this point is irrelevant.

KiMeepKi

The superiority/inferiority of racism is based in hatred and an inability to comprehend differences between ethnicities.

Frequently, yes. But racism doesn't stop being racism just because there is no hatred involved. It's quite possible to be racist, or unreasonable, or immoral, or whatever, and not hate.

KiMeepKi

However, if the basis is a fact and its not because of hatred or inability to understand, then can you really call it racist?

Of course I can. It is a fact that I tend to find east-asian women more attractive to south-asian women. I believe that they tend to be more attractive. Hence, my sexual preferences are racist by your definition. They're also very sexist, by an analogous definition (s/race/sex/). So what?

KiMeepKi

You just...misread that statement... sweatdrop

No, I read it exactly as you said it. Quoth you:

KiMeepKi

Racism is the idea of one race being superior or inferior to another.

Look, your definition of racism was completely independent of any factual, reasonable, or moral components. It's a particular belief. Whether it is reasonable or ethical is separate question--those categories have nothing to do with the definition. If you don't like these that, you should have defined it differently.

Um...I think we're simply misunderstanding each other....so I'm not really going to try to explain it any further after this. I don't know how I can get you to understand what I was saying. All I can say is that I was asking if the basis behind the concept was racist, not the actual concept itself. I don't find anything racist about superior humans because it has nothing to do with race. However, the fact that this supposedly superior human would basically be of the European standard of beauty and perfection...and goes so far as to say any other ethnicity mixed with this mutated human would look European...is racist to me. If this species of human actually does exist, then its no longer "racist" because the basis behind the concept never existed. There is no basis to it if its a natural occurrence; no human being could have decided to create this person according to the European ideal if its reality. And if a human did not create the concept, then it can't be racist...

Do you see what I'm saying now? I'm not talking about the actual idea but rather the line of thinking that created this idea in the first place.

If you don't get that, then I can't really say much else to you...-_-

EDIT: Actually, I think I may be able to give you an example using your own example. It may be a fact that you find East-Asians more attractive than South-Asians, but it is not a fact that they really are more attractive. If it was a fact that they really were more attractive, it would be silly to call you racist simply because you preferred that which was proven more attractive. But since it isn't a fact that East-Asians are more attractive than South-Asians, it is simply a questionable belief that depends on further details.

[VorpalNeko]

KiMeepKi

All I can say is that I was asking if the basis behind the concept was racist, not the actual concept itself. I don't find anything racist about superior humans because it has nothing to do with race.

Race is socially defined category based on phenotype, not genotype. If they're treated or define themselves as a race, then they're a race. That's why I said in my first post that it's "not necessarily" racist.

KiMeepKi

There is no basis to it if its a natural occurrence; no human being could have decided to create this person according to the European ideal if its reality. And if a human did not create the concept, then it can't be racist...

No human created a people of light or dark skin or whatever, but once humans treat it as a race, then obviously it becomes a racial distinction.

KiMeepKi

Do you see what I'm saying now? I'm not talking about the actual idea but rather the line of thinking that created this idea in the first place.

I understand. I just disagree with some of it.

KiMeepKi

If you don't get that, then I can't really say much else to you...-_-

How about this: I say what I think you're saying, and you check it. From your posts, I get that you think that
(1) The AG-people would be superior in many senses.
^I agree.
(2) The AG-people are not a race.
^Here I would say that while they're not necessarily a race, they very well could define themselves that way based on their differences (or society could treat them as such), making them a race, because 'race' is a socially derived concept.

Now here where it gets a bit fuzzy. Here, you seem to be saying that
(3) The belief in the superiority of AG-people is not racist, because they're not a race.
^I agree with that, provided that they are not actually a race (as above, they could be).

Whereas in other places, you based your justification on facts, so I interpreted you as this:
(4) The belief in the superiority of AG-people is not racist even if they are a race, because it would be backed by facts.
^I completely disagree with that. It makes it reasonable and perhaps not immoral, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't be racist.

KiMeepKi

EDIT: Actually, I think I may be able to give you an example using your own example. It may be a fact that you find East-Asians more attractive than South-Asians, but it is not a fact that they really are more attractive.

But I believe that they are. By your definition, that's all it takes.

KiMeepKi

If it was a fact that they really were more attractive, it would be silly to call you racist simply because you preferred that which was proven more attractive. But since it isn't a fact that East-Asians are more attractive than South-Asians, it is simply a questionable belief that depends on further details.

As I said previously: you seem to have some different definition of racism than the one you proposed earlier. Maybe you just need to change to "non-factual or subjective belief", or similar, if you like.

I'm not sure that's how it's actually used, though--it's very common to define it in terms of discrimination instead, for example. In terms of dating possibilities, I discriminate quite a lot by sex and a bit by race. That makes me be very sexist and a bit racist in that particular respect. I don't really have a problem with that, because unlike more politically relevant forms of sexism and racism, and some others, it doesn't seem to carry any (im)moral value.

[Yanueh]

This strikes me as being ridiculous and utterly absurd. The notion that a single mutation can turn us all into perfect Mary Sues superbeings is ridiculous.

Quote:

Highly evolved immune system (has been known to resist every disease known to man so far)

This is silly. There are many genes that factor into disease resistance - a single mutation wouldn't do it. Furthermore, to fight off EVERY disease, it would have to be attacking EVERYTHING indiscriminately. This would most likely result in being deathly allergic to... well, pretty much everything.

Quote:

Never overweight (their metabolism prevents the gaining of too much fat [a.k.a., partial lipodystophy])

Fast metabolisms digest food inefficiently. This is at odds with the claim that 10% of them have a metabolism so efficient that they don't produce waste.

Quote:

Lack of menstruation cycle (in women)

Then how do they breed?

Quote:

Mutation grows stronger generation after generation

Genes do not "grow stronger" without selective pressure. This can be anything from natural selection to a small gene pool, but some kind of pressure has to select for these genes.

Quote:

In ten percent of the population that has "Alexandria's Genesis," there is another characteristic of this mutation that is increasing on a yearly basis: the processing of human waste… or lack thereof.

As it turns out, in some of these people, the mutation is actually causing the digestive system to produce no waste. No one has found out how this is possible, but most scientists have a theory that may explain this increasing phenomenon.

The digestion process goes through its normal procedure until the digested product enters the large intestine. It is there, scientists suggest, that the large intestine absorbs everything and uses the product to keep the body in top shape. This makes the bladder completely useless, and leaves the small intestine and rectum as just an opening. It is not much of a theory, since very little is still known about "Alexandria's Genesis."

Okay, this is silly. Earlier they stated that they have a fast (inefficient) metabolism, but supposedly this mutation gives 10% of people who have it a super-efficient metabolism? What?

Also, there are certain things our bodies simply don't need that are carried out in our waste. Are we to believe these people simply let loads of useless - or maybe even toxic - substances build up in their bodies with no ill effects?

Furthermore, where do all the extra calories they get from burning all that food go? With a digestive system like that, they should be fat beyond reckoning.

Oh, wait, they can't - they're Mary Sues.

[Shokushu]

I've seen a few people with purple eyes. Well, not actually purple but in certain lighting conditions (the flash from pictures seems to do it a lot.)
My memory is a bit fuzzy but they might have all been fair skinned.

"No waste" is ridiculous though as humans can't digest cellulose and have a digestive system that uses it as "fiber."

-

The "one mutation" thing doesn't apply here though as it's not being claimed to have been a single mutation. You could have several genes close to each other on the same gene and not get much recombination splitting them up in, say, the number of generations between Rome and... now.
*There'd obviously be some but the majority of people with the chromosome could very likely still have the same set of closely linked genes, if there's no major selective force making it more common.

[Yanueh]

Shokushu

The "one mutation" thing doesn't apply here though as it's not being claimed to have been a single mutation. You could have several genes close to each other on the same gene and not get much recombination splitting them up in, say, the number of generations between Rome and... now.

The page the OP linked to sure seems to imply that it's one mutation:

Quote:

"Alexandria's Genesis," as it has been called since the 1960s, is a genetic mutation generally found in women of Euro-American (a.k.a., Caucasian) descent. This mutation can be traced as far as the Middle Ages in Northern Europe. The first known record of "Alexandria's Genesis" was written in the year CE 1330 (Common Era).

[Millie Baldessari]

sounds like a good B-list movie.

[suizome]

It's most likely a myth, it's too distorted to be a reality.

For instance the Greeks made gods and goddesses up to understand why the sun rises and sets. They knew that the sun went from one sky and then was followed down by night, but to explain it to themselves, they gave characters and characteristics that made it seem believeable but at the same time it wasn't.

Why I say this, is because a lot of the traits on this list seems overly exaggerated. Skin as white as a fairy's, mystical purple eye trait that seems to have the entire body to perform at a godly level. It doesn't sound like it is real. The traits may come out because of one circumstance but it shouldn't be so astounding as this sounds.

For one reason, women need to have periods to dump their eggs because they become waste and die once a month. Humans are waste machines and like all animals need to remove them one way or another. It could be like seagulls where it comes out at the same time or like vultures which come out of their feet. These assumptions that a person's super-efficent and fast metalbolism causes them to be like giant machines creating no waste seems way too extraordinary to be real. Even machines that are functioned to not create waste, make efficent waste (something that may be reusable, but it's still a waste product), plants make waste as well. It is essential for survival.

I know from experience that most humans can not have fast and effiecent metabolisms. My brother is a literal representation of the phrase "skin and bones" and he is always cold, too skinny to be healthy and can not create muscle. He tries his best to create some more protein and fat on his body but he burns off almost all of his nutrients.

Another gene idea, there is a gene disorder that causes a person to not have hair in some/all spots (Alopecia areata) but it can be dangerous to preform without body hair. In many places where hair is located is used to block foreign substances. Like nose hairs they block allergines, infections and rashes from directly entering the body and causing more disease.

In order to block the disease they need a good immune system, but a perfect immune system which evolves just as quickly as a pathogen from season to season seems stupendous. You can have a great body, treat it well and still get sick. For one thing, the rhinovirus (the cold) always progresses and changes. If someone had a body that could catch up with it, I'm sure scientist would be all over them. People have been trying to find a cure for the common cold for years and nothing has been sucessful in making the ultimate cold shielf. Besides the rhinovirus, if a person had an immune system that block all diseases, I think it would make them weaker when a big diesease like the swine flu comes around. People take flu shots so that their bodies can create antibodies for the disease coming their way. If a person's body does block all diseases they can not create antibodies against the diseases that seem most dangerous. Since the world is always progressing naturally to be a better and better survivalist, diseases do so too. In order to have a perfect immune system your body would have to run a race against all diseases that have yet to be created.

Besides all of this, body cells die everyday. They burn off. They stop grabbing nutrients from their other genes. DNA stops creating collegen. We get wrinkles. We get gray hairs. It's natural for people to get old.

Maybe they are real, the people who never grow old and live until they are one-hundred and fifty. Maybe we shouldn't call them humans. Maybe they aren't a race, but an entire new species because one gene alone can not do this, neither can many genes do this to survive and still be called human. We can never know, until then, they are the genetic Übermensch (superman) that we have hypothesised for years and dreamed to exist.